Doe v. Ta et al

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
V.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	Civil Action No. H-25-4260
§
BRENDY TA, et. al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Document No. 18).
Having 	considered 	the 	motion, 	submissions, 	and 	applicable 	law, 	the 	Court
determines that the motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This 	is 	a 	case 	involving 	an 	alleged 	malicious 	prosecution 	involving
harassment, threats, and emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that on April 6, 2024,
he filed a police report for harassment and threats. Plaintiff appears to further allege.
that after filing the police report, a warrant was issued for his arrest and he later
surrendered in May of 2024. Plaintiff contends that he lost an executive-track
position with a potential employer and suffered emotional distress because of the
warrant and his surrender.
Based on the foregoing, on April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against in the
334th District Court of Harris County against Defendants Brendy Ta, the Harris
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 13, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

County District Attorney's Office, and Insperity PEO Services LP ("Insperity")
(collectively "Defendants") for alleged "malicious prosecution," "retaliation and
whistleblower 	violation," 	"defamation 	and 	reputational 	harm," 	"tortious
interference," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "civil rights violations,"
and "violation of Title IX." 1 On September 8, 2025, Defendants removed the case to
this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. 2 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff
amended their complaint removing both federal claims. 3 On October 28, 2025,
Plaintiff filed the present motion to remand. On October 29, 2025, Defendant Ta
responded in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to remand. On November 6, 2025,
Defendant Insperity responded in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to remand.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant may remove a case to federal court if the federal court has subject
matter jurisdiction to hear the original complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 	Federal
.courts have limited jurisdiction, so any doubts regarding whether federal jurisdiction
is proper are resolved against federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200
F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). When evaluating a motion to remand, all factual
1 See Notice of Removal, Document No. 1 Exhibit A at 7-8 (Plaintiff's Original
Complaint).
2 See Notice of Removal, Document No. 1 at 1.
3 See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (State-Law Claims Only), Document No.
9 at 3.
2
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

allegations are considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and any
contested fact issues are resolved in the plaintiffs favor. Guillory v. PPG Indus.,
Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005). Gasch v. Harford Acc. & lndem. Co., 491
F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007).
A federal court may only assert subject matter jurisdiction over a matter when
authorized by the federal constitution or by statute. Energy Mgmt. Servs., LLC v.
City ofAlexandria, 739 F.3d255, 257 (5th Cir. 2014). A federal court may exercise
jurisdiction over any civil action arising under the federal constitution, statutes, or
treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law when a plaintiffs "well-
pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or
that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial
question of federal law." Griffith v. Alcon Rsch., Ltd., 712 F. App'x 406, 408 (5th
Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Furthermore, a court has supplemental jurisdiction "over all
other claims that are related" to a federal claim in which the court has federal
question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves to remand this case back to state court contending that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction. Defendants contend that remand is not required and that the Court
should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.
3
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

Generally, a case containing only state claims is remanded when "the federal
claims to which they are pendent are dismissed." Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.
v. Dresser Industries, 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992). However a district court
may, in its discretion, retain the state claims following the dismissal of the relevant
federal claims if the court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28.
U.S.C. § 1367(c). When deciding to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and retain
the state claims, "courts should consider whether the plaintiff has 'attempted to
manipulate the forum"' Brown v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 901 F.2d 1250,
1255 (5th Cir. 1990). However, "[g]uarding against improper forum manipulation is
only one of the important considerations[.]" Enochs v. Lampasas County, 641 F.3d
155, 160 (5th Cir. 2011). In determining if a motion to remand should be granted,
the Court will consider both statutory and common law factors. See 28 U.S.C.
§1367(c); Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2008) (listing judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity as factors to be considered).
Here, Plaintiff contends that "[t]he only remaining claims sound exclusively
in Texas common law" and that "[a]ll parties are Texas citizens." Plaintiff concludes
that "this Court no longer possesses original or diversity jurisdiction" and requests
that the 	Court decline to 	exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 4 Plaintiff further
4 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Document No. 18 at 3; Plaintiff's Reply in Support
of Motion to Remand and Request to Defer Merits Rulings, Document No. 21 at 1.
4
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

contends that the infancy 	of the 	case, the 	exclusive concerns 	of Texas law,
"principles of comity, judicial economy, fairness, and convenience" all support their
position that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 5 In
response, Defendant Ta contends that "[t]he sequence of events suggests a calculated
effort to avoid an adverse rulings on the merits." 6 Defendant Ta and Insperity further
contend that judicial efficiency supports their position that the Court should exercise
its discretion and asserting supplemental jurisdiction. 7 In reply to Defendants'
contentions, Plaintiff contends that the current motion is not an attempt to avoid
rulings on the merits and provides that "[t]he amendment [to Plaintiffs original
complaint] was filed before new counsel appeared and before any answer or
discovery. " 8
A review of the record in this matter reveals that all parties are citizens of
Texas and that Plaintiffs claims arise entirely under Texas law. 9 Based on the
5 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Document No. 18 at 3.
6 Defendant Brendy Ta's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant'
Renewed Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 19 at 4.
7 Defendant Insperity Pro Services, 	L.P. 's 	Response 	to 	Plaintiff's Motion 	to
Remand, Document No. 22 at 4; Defendant Brendy Ta's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and Defendant' Renewed Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 19 at
4.
8 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Remand and Request to Defer Merits
Rulings, Document No. 21 at 3.
9 See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (State-Law Claims Only), Document
No. 9 at 1-3.
5
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

foregoing, and the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance that it is in the Court's discretion to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction finding that this matter is still in its infancy and involves questions of .
•Texas law only. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to the
334th District Court of Harris County, Texas is granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS 	that 	Plaintiffs 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	(Document 	No. 	18) 	is
GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the 334th District Court ofHarris
County, Texas. The Court further
ORDERS that all other pending motions in this matter are DENIED AS
MOOT.
THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this~ day.ofNovember, 2025.
6
'1vt-.,J 	t~i.J;t;.;:::.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04260 Document 23 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6